Review: Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" (2012)

Easily Wes Anderson's best and 2012's best so far. Anderson couldn't have gathered a better group of actors for this project. Every look of every face at every moment was perfect. "Moonrise Kingdom" elevated the name of Wes Anderson from quirky, off the wall humor which has attracted a large cult following but not yet appealed to a mass audience. "Moonrise Kingdom" might be the ticket that gets him over the hump and into the living rooms of a far larger audience. The film successfully transgressed the hearts of children and adults, something rare outside of Pixar.

The film is constantly clever, frequently hysterical, and once it was over it was absolutely one of the best films I had ever seen. The chemistry between the actors, specifically Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) were fantastic. Of Bruce Willis, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, and Frances McDormand, only one name is used to doing the type of film "Moonrise Kingdom" is. Bill Murray seems to only be looking out for films like this, and especially Wes Anderson films. It was a nice surprise to see Bruce Willis and Ed Norton in this project defying their normal type cast characters.

The adventure of this film was unique, special to watch. As Sam and Suzy venture out into the wild, you are walking beside them. So many critics of Wes Anderson claim his characters aren't grounded within reality but I beg to differ. All Wes Anderson does is play out the real fantasies of even adults in beautifully pictured films while using childish or silliness means to communicate his ideas. The imagination of Wes Anderson is short of Terry Gilliam while remaining in reality.

The love story in "Moonrise Kingdom" is between children but can't immediately think of a film with a significantly superior love story. The film attaches you to any sense of nostalgic childhood love while having nostalgic childhood adventures. Nostalgic, that is what "Moonrise Kingdom" was for me. Absolutely a must-see for 2012, the best film of the year outside of an awaiting December.

"Moonrise Kingdom"
9 / 10

Review: Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln" (2012)

Steven Spielberg is back! I have failed the film fan community by not yet exposing myself to "The Adventures of Tintin" (2011) or "War Horse" (2011). The marketing for both of those films just didn't sell me the idea that those films were going to deliver. From what I had read both films were moderately reviewed films, but I intend on checking out "War Horse" first of the two. Having said that, the last film Steven Spielberg gave to me was "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (2008) which was a huge letdown even though generally reviewed kindly. The film before that was "War of the Worlds" (2005). In my eyes Spielberg was starting to look like he was entering Hollywood's mediocrity. No director has given the number of iconic films Spielberg has, and "Lincoln" has revived Spielberg's image for me. "Lincoln" reminded me that Spielberg is still a giant, no matter how long it's been since I've seen something great from him.

Spielberg has shown he has a special attention to detail. There wasn't a moment in the film I can recall that I felt something was out of place or didn't feel real. Having said that, Daniel Day Lewis delivers again. Most people have only been exposed to the image of Lincoln on American currency, and now they have been given Daniel Day Lewis. Daniel Day Lewis is Lincoln and this was as surreal a life of Lincoln I will possibly ever see. Daniel Day Lewis gave a consistent performance, expressing to me Lincoln's consistently calm, thoughtful, wise, and ambitious personality.

Lighting is special to me and the lighting of the film was superb. Every mood Spielberg wanted to express through lighting in my opinion was successful. I don't have a sure idea yet where "Lincoln" lines up against Spielberg's top films, but there is a sure chance it will be an arm's reach away from "Saving Private Ryan" (1998)

I admire Spielberg for not sacrificing historical truths and allowing the politics play out as they did in history honestly. So many filmmakers would seemingly sacrifice themselves to degrade their opposing political perspective and opinions. In this film, rarely seen in Hollywood, is a built-up Republican Party which set out against all odds with the jump start and direction of Abraham Lincoln. It was interesting to see how Spielberg played out the roles of both parties in their heated debates in the film. There was a sense of authenticity in the film due to the apparent lack of political bias. Instead of selling political or religious ideas, we are sold an honest view of one of the greatest men in the world's history.

The entire cast was fantastic. Tommy Lee Jones pulled out another good one, best since "No Country For Old Men" (2007). Sally Field's best ever performance. The first time I ever cared to watch James Spader and he gave exactly what the character needed to. Who would have known Joseph Gordon-Levitt was going to be the one on the bottom? I felt like he was picking up where Heath Ledger left off in "The Patriot" (2000), a son defying his father to enlist in a civil war era war in order to find honor.

One of the most successful things coming from this movie is something the mass of Americans has already given up on, that American politics are capable of great things. If trying to swim up creek in American politics has consistently been in the best interest of the majority, perhaps we can take something from the film after all. The film made me evaluate motives of each character, what and why they did the things they did, including Lincoln, and the transparency is actually similar to that of today's politicians. Times are different but maybe not the politics. Thanks to "Lincoln", I have been given more to think about. Really does reveal the pettiness in today's politicians regarding ridiculous issues whereas history's icons like Lincoln dealt with monstrous issues.

I don't think Daniel Day-Lewis gave the year's 'Best Performance', nor do I don't think the film is the best of the year. I do think Spielberg should get 'Best Director'. I don't want to take anything away from Daniel Day-Lewis, he delivers huge in each performance, my favorite in "There Will Be Blood" (2007) but this role while intense in the icon portrayed, I didn't feel the range was great. I'm not sure what Daniel Day-Lewis cannot do.

Outside of political conspiracy films, what political film could compare to "Lincoln"? Can't think of anything on the level of "Lincoln". "Lincoln" is an absolute must-see film of 2012, and must-see in theaters! Without Peter Jackson's "Hobbit" released, this is the overall 2nd best film of the year.

"Lincoln"

8 / 10

Review: George Lucas's "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999)

This film comes off of too much time apart from the original trilogy which I think aided in an inevitable failure. It isn't contended among fans or critics of film, or fans or critics of Star Wars. George Lucas as a director is blind. Sure he had a good run with "American Graffiti", but come on, no one is going to make an argument to say he is anything but a bad director. He decided to helm Episode 1, ouch.

If you have seen the film, I will say the whole movie can be really summed up with the same terms as judging the character Jar Jar Binks. Dialogue sucks, graphics suck, and story sucks. Sure, there is creativity. I like the idea of podracing. I like the look of so many things in the film from the droids, costumes, and some of the sets. Unfortunately they all feel empty when there is no story holding it all together. You can wave gold in my face all day, but unless I have the knowledge of value or beauty, it is meaningless. In this case, I was never invested in the story, so when anything happens, it never matters.

The planet of Naboo sucks. Character of Jar Jar is unforgivable. The graphics are lazy. I have heard better stories in pop-up books in an elementary school library. Pretty much everything outside of the idea of podracing, hiring Liam Neeson, and everything that is Darth Maul, the film failed at. Liam Neeson was a great find, its just too bad his character was never explored or able to perform in any scene at his potential. I am actually not a huge hater of the kid actor chosen for Anakin, I blame the direction before all. I think direction can lead to either great acting or terrible acting depending on contentment and picking talent. Contentment was infectious in "The Phantom Menace".

Speaking of it's title, I don't get it. We spend hours adventuring through various lands and scenarios doing all kinds of things, not really grounded in any single direction. All the while it's title is referring to a villain we see for 5 minutes. Don't get me wrong, the time spent with Darth Maul is absolutely amazing, and really carries anything good in the film, but to title the film after a character who doesn't impact very much in terms of STORY is really missed. Not that changing the title would save much.

The actors in the film are mediocre at their peak, but usually just plain bad. There isn't much to hang on to in the film. The only argument I could make is comparing it to any other fantasy film to argue its vastness in content. I couldn't argue story, acting, or graphics. I think "Blade Runner" was much more amazing on a much smaller budget. I really believed Harrison Ford was in a real futuristic dirty city, holding a fantastic weapon, in an even better story. Plenty of fantasy to be found in Hollyworld, and this is mediocre at best in just fantasy.

If it wasn't for Darth Maul, from his epic introduction, face, and double lightsaber was pure greatness. Darth Maul could be the single best character given in the prequels, and we don't even know who he is or why he is... he just is.

If you haven't seen the film, I don't know how that would be possible, but seeing it would be a requirement to maintain legal citizenship. It wouldn't be to fulfill any need for quality film. This film would be exceedingly fun for children, but for myself, I can go years without watching the film from beginning to end, and that's because as a Star Wars fan I'm required to endure the pain. At the end of the day, it is a Star Wars film, and contains Darth Maul...

"Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace"

5 / 10

Review: The "Red Riding" Trilogy (2009)

The trilogy was written by Tony Grisoni, but directed by 3 different directors. Tony Grisoni started off his screenwriting career with "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas", a film not well received by critics, but is living its days as a cult classic. He moved on to do some smaller hit and miss projects, then in 2009 released a popular, well received trio project, the "Red Riding" trilogy. Each is a full length film featuring characters who cycle in and out of each film, with each experiencing their own development. The films are set in Yorkshire, England, during a time of major corruption in the police department. The officers are all together unique, with their own selfish motives, and only some come to confront their darkness. Each film is very good, but altogether a great work.

"Red Riding: 1974" (2009)

The first of the film sets the tone for the series, starting off with a huge bang. The film is carried by a grand performance by Andrew Garfield (soon to be in the new Spider-Man reboot). The film is beautifully shot, each scene more interesting than the previous. The story is relentless, pursuing each character's darkness, moving at high rates of speed and as an audience member, you are waiting to see the crash. The film really has no comparison, it isn't like another movie or series. It is set in a time and place in which most Americans aren't familiar with, but incorporates the common police corruption identifiable by all.

Here you see the effects of corruption, on the small and big, the would be innocent and guilty. The story is compelling, you're emotions like a roller-coaster riding apart the track. This is noir, and a mystery that unravels deeper and deeper, then even deeper. There just aren't many good films based on police corruption worth watching, this one is definitely worth it.

It is a powerful film, and by the end, you will want to watch the next 2 immediately. It is a film that feels directed by David Fincher, from the dark sin in "Se7en" to the mystery thriller of "Zodiac". They are all filmed in the same style.

"Red Riding: 1874"

8.5 / 10

"Red Riding: 1980" (2009)

The second of the series is definitely and obviously the least of the three. I believe it is a key piece of the overall story, in showing the continual and more perverse world of the corrupt officers, but does take a step down.

The story is about "The Yorkshire Ripper" who preys on young women of a poor community. A detective arrives to investigate the crimes, and discovers many inconsistencies, then finds himself surrounded by pressure and corrupted officers.

The film is less compelling than the first, but still offers more than enough to hold it's own. The performance is steady and very good in quality, but there is a lacking greater performance where the first and third are strong. Still, I believe the film carries itself slowly but surely to the finish line, right into the great finish of the third installment.

"Red Riding: 1980"

7 / 10

"Red Riding: 1983" (2009)

The final chapter in the "Red Riding" trilogy hits closer to home than the rest. The third film hits on the more sensitive issues surrounding the more than decade long corruption. I make an attempt to harbor all spoilers, so the effects of the film is delivered fully to it's viewer.

An officer who is in all three films, is now in position to make key decisions. He can aid his fellow officers, who he has grown extensive relationships with, or he can dig up enough compassion to expose the truth no matter the cost. The final film brings the series together, giving much needed remedies to open wounds in the story. I admire the idea of 4 large stories being told, and taking 3 films to do it. I love the styles used, the performances, the films are standout great pieces of work.

"Red Riding: 1983"

8 / 10

For a serious fan of film, this series is a must see. Whether you want performance, a lesson in how to tell a story, or an example of great cinematography, you will enjoy this series.

The "Red Riding" Trilogy

9 / 10

Review: Walt Disney's "Pinocchio" (1940)

In the beginning Walt created Disney and Disney Animation. The animation was good, and hand drawn. The films had great story and art, as Walt was hovering over the projects. Then Walt said "Let there be Snow White", and there was Snow White. Walt saw that it was good and separated his from the rest, calling his "good" and the other's "bad". And there was distinction of quality in animation.

Here, is "Pinocchio", Walt Disney's second well-known full length animation. It is a story about a clock-maker and crafter Geppetto who desires a son, and makes a wooden puppet. Then a magical fairy brings the puppet to life, giving Geppetto his 'son'. Of course Pinocchio isn't a real boy, but he desires to be. He sets out to earn the right of becoming a real boy by proving his bravery, honesty, and unselfishness. Instead he becomes tempted and fooled around every corner, becoming a scared, lying, selfish 'boy'. But when his father Geppetto is taken by a beast, Pinocchio sets out to save him.

"Pinocchio" is one of the best, if not the best classic Disney animation, I have ever seen. The story reveals the wickedness and dependence of man, and then redemption. I saw the film as a child and remember how terrifying the film was, and maybe I only saw it one time for that reason. I wanted the funner more exciting movie, not the honest and gross one.

The film looks amazing, visually championing to any current animated project. The music chosen is amazing as most classic Disney films. The character of Pinocchio is simple, but the situations and characters around him are what amplifies his own character. From the monstrous whale to the creepy villains on Pleasure Island. And perhaps the darkness is even darker with each sitting of the film.

The idea that a child's film would impact such a variety of age groups is great, but the fact that a film as such would pock and prod at such serious implications is far better. You are gross, living in a gross environment, in need of saving. Bam. It is too bad most children's films now are so empty, appealing to adults in humor as it's perversity passes over the heads of the youthful viewer, missing a more powerful message.

This film is truly for all ages, and has lasted over 70 years. This is a must-see film. If you or your child have not seen this film, and you are considering a trip out to see "Shrek 8: The series will not die", you are a fool. Take a trip to the nearest retail store, buy the DVD and a box of popcorn, and watch the movie at home. You will have seen a superior film and own it for future viewing.

"Pinocchio"

9.5 / 10

Review: Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive" (2011)

Nicolas Winding Refn, director of "Bronson", "Valhalla Rising", and also the "Pusher" trilogy just delivered perhaps the year's best film so far. A film which displayed a "Gone in 60 Seconds" type appearance in it's preview, couldn't be further from. This film revealed just how valuable it is to have a great performance. I have felt for a long time that a performance can carry a film with a bad story, but a great story cannot carry a film with a bad performance. Ryan Gosling is proving this fact over and over. The roles he decides to take are not going to launch him into DiCaprio type stardom, but he surely deserves nearly all the success for each film he played in. There hasn't quite been a 'big time' film for him, after starring in chick flicks and small independent projects.

In "Drive", Ryan Gosling has shown me that after each film, he is consistently getting better and better. He plays "Driver" and sometimes "Kid" in the film, subtly never giving up his name. The character is a well mannered, well groomed, hardworking stunt driver by day... and a well disciplined driver for hire by night. The Driver decides to fall in-love with a neighbor, who's husband gets out of jail, makes a couple bad decisions, and bam... the Driver finds himself invested in a situation that grows bigger and bigger, and one he may not be able to drive out of.

The film is a beautiful one. Each scene is well thought out, and consistent scene after scene, never giving me an 'out of place' feeling. The movie has many slow moments, but it is valuable time for the viewer to be the Driver... in thought. Each slow moment allows the viewer to think the thoughts of the character himself. The thoughts and feelings are obvious but each character reaction is a real time reaction allowing understanding to take place. The facial expressions of the actors in the film are good, but great from Ryan Gosling. He can seemingly read lines with his facial expressions. His dramatic moments and moments of suspense all come so naturally and also so surprising one thrill after the other.

This is an thrill ride for everyone. From people who don't normally do action flicks, to those who relish in them. When the action happens, it happens with perfection. Cinematography is remarkable. You could have a good idea about what could possibly take place in the next couple scenes, but simple camera angles, and lighting trickery meant all the difference.

The dialog is scarce and meaningful. The Driver doesn't employ or show any interest in small talk, instead decides to observe and be observed. The Driver doesn't share with the audience any kind of back story. We get no information about the character's history prior to the film's beginning. Everything we know about him, we see.

The score of the film fits everything the film did, event he pink font for the title and credits pleased me. The rest of the cast includes... Carey Mulligan (Jenny, "An Education"), Bryan Cranston (Walt, "Breaking Bad"), and Ron Perlman ("Hellboy"). They all accomplish the assumed goals, but none of them bite the heels of Ryan Gosling.

While Quentin Tarantino is successful with great raw action sequences, he also creates some of the best dialog in all the world of film. Nicolas Winding Refn isn't concerned with quotability. He simply places his interest in good film, which I intend on owning the day the DVD is released. This is a must-see film for everyone. So far the year's best. This is an action movie for film savvy intellectuals... not necessarily just for the fans who limit themselves to more recent flicks pumped out by Hollywood's new boyfriend Michael Bay.

"Drive"

9 / 10

Top Ten Best Comic-Book Films.

The List:

1. The Dark Knight - 9 /10

2. Batman Begins - 8 /10

3. Iron Man - 8 /10

4. The Iron Giant - 8 /10

5. Unbreakable - 8 /10

6. Superman - 7.5 /10

7. Captain America - 7.5 /10

8. The Incredible Hulk - 7.5 /10

9. X-Men: First Class - 7.5 /10

10. Batman - 7.5 /10

To see where I rank the rest...

The Batman series:

-Batman (1989) -- 7/10

-Batman Returns (1992) -- 5/10

-Batman Forever (1995) -- 3.5/10

-Batman & Robin (1997) -- 3/10

-Batman Begins (2005) -- 8/10

-The Dark Knight (2008) -- 9/10

The Superman series:

-Superman (1978) -- 7.5/10

-Superman II (1980) -- 7/10

-Superman III (1983) -- 3/10

-Superman IV (1987) -- 4/10

-Superman Returns (2006) -- 6/10

Marvel series:

-Blade (1998) -- 6/10

-X-Men (2000) -- 7/10

-Blade II (2002) -- 5.5/10

-Spider-Man (2002) -- 7/10

-Daredevil (2003) -- 5/10

-X-Men 2 (2003) --7/10

-Hulk (2003) -- 6/10

-The Punisher (2004) -- 6/10

-Spider-Man 2 (2004) -- 7/10

-Blade: Trinity (2004) -- 4/10

-Elektra (2005) -- refused to watch

-Fantastic Four (2005) -- 4/10

-X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) --5/10

-Ghost Rider (2007) -- 3/10

-Spider-Man 3 (2007) -- 5.5/10

-Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007) -- 4.5/10

-Iron Man (2008) -- 8/10

-The Incredible Hulk (2008) -- 7.5/10

-Punisher: War Zone (2008) -- refused to watch

-X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) 4.5/10

-Iron Man 2 (2010) -- 7/10

-Thor (2011) -- 7/10

-X-Men: First Class (2011) -- 7.5/10

-Captain America (2011) -- 7.5/10

Other Comic Films:

-Dick Tracy (1990) -- 6/10

-The Rocketeer (1991) -- 6/10

-Spawn (1997) -- 2.5/10

-Unbreakable (2000) -- 8/10

-Hellboy (2004) -- 6/10

-Hellboy II (2008) -- 5/10

-Watchmen (2009) -- 6.5/10

-Kick-Ass (2010) -- 7/10

-Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010) -- 7.5/10

-The Green Hornet (2011) -- 5/10

-Green Lantern (2011) -- 4/10

Review: Matthew Vaughn's "X-Men: First Class" (2011)

The first good X-Men movie. I think the previous X-Men films didn't all suck, but they were all facing the direction of suck. The first X-Men movie in 2000 was the better of the previous films. It introduced a childhood full of memories, so many beloved characters went from ink to live action. I think it may be possible for this movie to have really sucked and it get a slight pass. The movie had several problems, but those problems seemed to spread like a cancer as each film after it got worse and worse. In 2011 Matthew Vaughn found the cure. It is now his best reviewed film.

Matthew had just wrapped up "Kick-Ass", a crude action film with sex filled icing, and sprinkles of humor. Movies like that make me sick and excited, reminds me of a roller coaster. Just like a roller coaster, with age, they get to be less and less appealing to me. Had it not been for the crude sexual content, the film would have been much better. I think 'First Class' could have had some of that, but chose not to, making it better. Leave the crude at home, and use creativity to make the better bold original pieces.

'First Class' chose to star some very good actors alongside some mediocre ones. There were some flaws in the acting, throughout the film, but overshadowed by the better performances. Just about every scene with Michael Fassbender (Magneto) was stellar. Giving off the feeling that Tarantino was behind the camera in various scenes. Not one other actor in the film gave a performance in any scene comparable to all of Fassbender's. Fassbender carried the film from good to very good, a big leap.

The film lacked character development outside of Magneto, and even that was a bit fast and unexplored. Instead of exploring the character for more than a minute, I felt we were given several difference glimpses lasting seconds. While they looked good, it only lasted long enough in 2 scenes.

The cinematography was good, fine, dandy. Nothing comes to mind when I think amazing, but it was definitely satisfying. Costumes and set designs had a similar problem as "Thor" did, in that it sometimes felt claustrophobic, and some designs of characters I didn't care for. An example is the character of Beast. I didn't like that he reminded me of Teen Wolf. Teen Wolf sucks. Teen Wolf needed to leave the movie.

Kevin Bacon surprised me. I don't know what else to say about him. He wasn't amazing, but he carried his own when I gave him little chance.

When I think about 'First Class', I think about a few disappointments, and an amazing scene with Magneto in a pub. Magneto in that pub was the best sequence in the film, and if it were to loop, it could contend with some great films. The downside is that they connected this film with the others instead of trying to remake the series.

The film is a must see for thrill-seeking, quality film hunters. A must own for anyone who sees the film.

"X-Men: First Class"

7 / 10

Review: Kenneth Branagh's "Thor" (2011)

It's time to nerd out and examine another comic book movie. I did not know a whole lot about the lore and character before watching the film, but I probably knew more than most. God guy, holds a big hammer, breaks things... that guy.

The film has a great story, Thor aims to please his father outwardly while pleasing himself inwardly. In doing so, ends up breaking his father's law. When his father realizes the laws have been broken, confronts his son, failing to repent or turn from his mistakes, pushes on in trying to justify the decisions. His father then banishes him from their world to Earth, a place which equally matches his selfishness, a place where he belongs. Thor's father makes himself available in the form of his own hammer and casts it to Earth, available only to Thor if and when he comes to realize his dependence on his father for his power, turning away from his selfishness. Thor does, and is enabled to lift the hammer, redeemed, able to confront his mistakes and fix his mistakes. Then he is embraced again by his father.

The character development was sufficient, but sufficiency isn't something I settle for. I would have preferred to explore the characters a bit more than the film did. I think the film was too excited to include too many characters for the sake of something grander than it really was. Yes with the lingering existence of an 'Avengers' film, but this is supposed to be a focused introduction film, not a pre-Avengers film.

The film was shot with unique style. The slow motion was fine, sometimes better than fine. I don't like how rushed everything is in the film, every place you go, everything you see, you only see it for a second. Nothing is really explored beyond introduction.

I was excited during the film. The story made me feel most of the emotions it wanted me to. However, the sets were causing me to feel a bit claustrophobic. The town Thor fell to and spent most of his time in, felt like a town of 2 people while the villain who enters the town is supposed to be threatening the planet. I don't believe the threat is that great when his power goes from erasing people and things from existence to simply igniting things on fire. These things are easily overlooked when something significant is happening, and I believe the only significant thing in the movie was the story.

The acting was mediocre at best. I am not a huge fan of Portman and haven't seen enough of Hemsworth. There wasn't a huge demand from their performance so their mediocre performance doesn't stick out as much. I believe any C or B-list actress could have filled the roll for Portman, and Hemsworth perhaps replaced by any muscular B-list actor.

The costumes and such looked fine, everything seemed to look the part regardless of preference. But I did wonder where Thor's helmet was for 99% of the film.

If you haven't seen the film, see it. If you have seen the film, I bet you have your calender marked for when you can again.

"Thor"

7.5 / 10

Review: "The Lincoln Lawyer" (2011)

Good old Matthew McConaughey. He seems to find roles of the same value, none of them of any significance. This was a film scripted for the 90's, a crazy out of the world, see through court room drama. Everything the film tried to tell us was a secret, was obvious. There was no real trickiness to it, and even if there were good tricks, its like good sandwich meat wrapped in moldy bread. There is nothing in this film that makes it passed mediocre. If you want to vegetate on the couch and watch something with no expectations of a good time, and don't have ANYTHING else to do, then MAYBE as you flip through the channels on your T.V. you MIGHT pick this movie over "Dog Whisperer".

The movie might not be too bad for those who don't care about quality of film vs. a cheap thrill. But I consider myself a conasour of quality, and I reject this one. If I saw this movie being given away at Walmart for free I might take a copy. McConaughey is just boring to watch on anything, and come to think of it, I am not sure if there was ever anything I saw him in that he didn't cause me to feel bored.

The film isn't shot with high expectations, the crew seemed to just do their job rather than strive for anything other than normal Hollywood standards. In every scene, you are reminded that the ideas have been recycled already, time and time again. Skip this movie if you can.

"The Lincoln Lawyer"

5.5 / 10

Review: Greg Mottola's "Paul" (2011)

Greg Mottola previously helmed "Adventureland" and "Superbad", and with some similar humor, created "Paul". Greg Mottola is not a very moral, or modest man. He lets the monster off the leash in each of his films, allowing for crude sexual humor, mocking religion and law, and embracing the breaking of the law with a heavy emphasis on drugs and alcohol. In "Superbad" it was a crude film about teenagers chasing sex and alcohol. In "Paul" you get a couple of adults, an alien, and a bag of drugs and out comes a see-through comedy with minor humor shown in each of the movie's previews, allowing for no real enjoyment. The puns on law enforcement and religion is also a page frequently used, and I was convinced this movie was going to be something special, until the same old jokes which are pouring out of all the D-list flicks are run dry.

Seth Rogen provided us with some slightly funny moments as the alien's vocals, but just too tainted by the not-so creative team writing the movie. I keep hoping for a funny Simon Pegg / Nick Frost film since "Shaun of the Dead" but I am constantly let down.

There aren't any scenes which were striking to me, nothing more than a couple of losers, with a loser CG character, a loser story, with a loser direction. All is lost.

Box this film up and send it into the $1 bin at Walmart, where it will be forever. If you have the chance to see this movie, don't. You will feel less defiled, and there are plenty of things you could better spend your time on, like clubbing your toes with a hammer.

"Paul"

4.5 / 10

Review: "Battle: Los Angeles" (2011)

I found a picture from the film that accurately describes my reaction to it.

If you thought "Independence Day" was bad, this has broke new ground for you. This movie is one giant "welcome to erf" audio clip of Will Smith. This movie is anything but subtle, anything but interesting, and anything but original. I wasn't sold on this movie sucking too bad until I saw Michelle Rodriguez's face in the movie trailers, then I knew. I saw it because I wanted to experience the American male's desire for bullet's and explosions. Boy was there bullets and explosions. It is just too bad nothing that happens makes me care or believe anything the movie is telling me.

Everything the movie introduces continuously makes the whole project worse. Every scene is worse than the previous. There isn't a single character developed, not a single good scene or shot in the film. The action is simply bad. The director spent too much time in boot camp and not enough time thinking about how to translate "real" to film. The film felt too adamant about portraying a "real" soldier instead of concentrating on filming a decent movie. This movie seemed to exist for the sake of creating video games. If you could find a youtube video of a 4 year old with a water gun, it would be a better movie than this one. This movie was embarrassing. There is nothing good to be had. If someone asked me to create a list of the top 1,000 alien movies, this would not be on it.

"Battle: Los Angeles"

2.5 / 10

Review: John Wells' "The Company Men" (2010)

John Wells makes his directorial debut with "The Company Men" in 2010. The film stars Ben Affleck, Tommy Lee Jones, and Chris Cooper, a story about corporate downsizing and the greed behind powerful business owners. Ben Affleck is one man who suffers from a rich man's panic button.

The film's most interesting man is Tommy Lee Jones' character, an aging wealthy man, contemplating morality in big business's decisions. Had Tommy Lee Jones not played in the film, I suspect a very large weight would have been added to Affleck, it would have crushed him, and the film. Affleck again seems to barely hold his own.

I think the film was a good one, and could have landed in the pile of most Hollywood productions about 'evil big business'. John Wells does a fine job carrying the film, giving us a few glimpses of characters with some decent development. I do think however, the character developments in the film could have made this film much more relevant. I don't feel like I really knew Ben Affleck's character very well, the story just tried to show me what it was he was doing instead of showing me WHO he was and WHO he is as he is doing things.

The timing of the film will make this film better now than it may be in 10 years, since it is so easy to hate big business right now. I would not venture to say this film is a must-see, but rather a film to see if there isn't much at the local Redbox to choose from.

"The Company Men"

6 / 10

Review: Michel Gondry's "The Green Hornet" (2011)

In 2004 Michel Gondry directed "Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind", a very good film, maybe Jim Carrey's best film. Then moved on to Dave Chappelle's Block Party" in 2005 and "Be Kind Rewind" in 2008 for a couple of less significant projects. In 2008 he wrote and directed "Tokyo!", a film with mixed reviews, with bizarre written all over it.

When I think about Michel Gondry and his filmography I am fixated on 'Eternal Sunshine' only. I would like to think a director who basically starts with this film would move on to bigger and better things, but time is proving me wrong with so many examples. "The Green Hornet" was one of these examples.

"The Green Hornet" stares Seth Rogen, and as much as the cast tries, it just cannot make up for the horrendous story and choppy cinematography. Michel Gondry appears to have entered into the longest line in Hollywood, the sellout line.

The film is absurd. It has no identity. Its funny, not. Its an action, eh. Its a drama, not. The film is just terribly boring. It is hard to find the words to describe my thoughts for this film. If you absolutely hate "Rush Hour", this movie might make you change your mind on a day you are forced to pick between them.

To think this movie was released in 3D, just proves the goal of everyone involved in creating this pile of dung. They wanted in on what was "cool", taking from everything new and successful to make a Razzie worthy film. If I were going to say one good thing about this movie, it would be... that Seth Rogen hid behind a mask for most of the worst scenes, allowing me to lie to myself, "its not him".

"The Green Hornet"

3.5 / 10

Review: "Lewis and Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery" (1997) Documentary

This documentary, about Lewis and Clark's adventurous journey out west and back is great. I find the documentary extremely detailed. I love the arrangement of the documentary as well, its told on a timeline side by side with a map, showing us just what it was they did. The events described in the film are truly inspiring, to find out just what each man experienced along the way was great.

This was one of the most exciting biographical documentaries I have ever seen. It opened my mind to many new things, things I dwell about now, things I am curious about now. I think if someone wants a great bite of American history, this is a great place to start.

It was even more evident to how great this documentary was when I watched another one narrated by Jeff Bridges and about died of boredom. This documentary was over 3 hours long, each minute as great as the prior.

"Lewis and Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery"

9 / 10

Review: "Blind Spot" (2008) Documentary

This documentary is about what would or could happen if and when we exhaust our supplies of fossil fuels, particularly oil. The film examines potential economic and social concerns.

The documentary was good. I don't find myself excited about political documentaries, as they are so bias in their creations. I haven't watched a documentary which removed it's own bias to bring full truth, and this is no exception. I would prefer to hear more people speaking in terms of what could happen "if" instead of what WILL happen "if". Still, the film does examine some things that I haven't thought too much about, and cannot speak to much about without spoiling the film.

Some of the propositions in the film regarding the nature of people are fascinating as well. I still am not convinced that we are somehow running out of oil, nor am I convinced we aren't. I am being open minded, waiting on true evidence to be revealed about the particulars. I do believe in the laws of production and consumption, or consuming more than is being produced, but that is the number we need most.

There are many documentaries that would be nice to put in with this one, to give an overall picture of human beings and how we condone ourselves concerning fossil fuels. One other documentary is called "Guns, Germs, and Steel". In that documentary it discuses the keys to successful or progressive cultures. The key was food. If you can minimize the necessities of life, food being the biggest one, it creates more time to be progressive in other areas. If you cannot minimize the amount of time it takes to produce food as a culture, then that culture doesn't progress. In the American culture, we have progressed through many means, and our most current and longest lasting means is by the use of oil. The use of oil has allowed for progression in many ways. We have gone to space, dominated in wars, and expanded modern sciences... all because we have minimized the cost and time of the production of food. Food is at the root of the whole mess, we concern ourselves as a culture with non-essentials, as we have mastered the preparations and costs of food. Now, even the lowest citizen is capable of living better than the upper classes of the past.

If we lose our production of oil, or inflate the costs, we will treat oil as our food, because it feeds our lives in all its desires. Going green isn't the problem, the problem is the human condition. Human being will always infect and rape every means of progression we could ever conjure, green energy or not.

"Blind Spot"

7 / 10

Review: "The Fast and the Furious" (2001)

I found this picture to be hilarious.

Saw this film originally in the theaters, and it has been one of my favorite car films in memory, so I decided to give it another go. The film still pleases me, in areas separate from great cinema. There aren't very many films that capture a culture consumed in the auto world at all. This one is a good one for what it appears to try and achieve. I don't believe the director set out with the goal of 'Best Picture', which should be the goal of more directors in Hollywood than actually exist. There is a sense, a large sense of pushing products as advertisements in the film. From the cars themselves, to brand name equipment.

The biggest problem with the film is just about every action sequence. They obviously sacrifice much to wow the audience with obvious flaws. From a car sliding under the trailer of a big rig, to the whizzing effects outside of the car windows. Every scene where a car goes airborne is bad. But, at the end of the day, they weren't horrible enough to have me consider slicing at the film with too harsh of words.

The acting is at the 'B' level, where everything about this film rests. Paul Walker is as much an over-actor as anyone, with a few good scenes. He isn't an actor that can carry a single scene on his own yet. For that, the film relies on Vin Diesel. Vin Diesel's role on the film is easier to carry scenes on his own. They place him in a dark corner and turn up the hard-rock music and we believe he is a mysterious tough guy. No matter what lighting or music you use, Paul Walker is just as bad as his worst scenes, all equally unbelievable. Would have been more conceivable for him to be a cop if he knew just how to hold a gun, but in the film he holds it like he wants to have a squirt-gun contest. Vin Diesel pretty much is everything they ask him to be. He says little, looks big, portraying tough, and uncaring about life. I don't mind his performance in the film, but at the same time much isn't asked. His rage is finely played out, and rage isn't something I often see in film and really feel is authentic. The other cast members are just about all the same, 'C' level. They do their job with low expectations, and clock out. If the actors ever looked horrendous, I wouldn't blame them necessarily, because the dialogue was some of the worst I've heard.

The score of the film was... fine I guess. Not preferred but, it was trying to deliver a hip-hop influenced culture, so the music fit the film. It would still be nice to see a film about a similar culture shot in a serious award winning style with a great original score, but till then, we have this... what do you expect out of a movie with this title?

I believe there to be a nice sized group of people that exist in the U.S. which consider themselves to be fans of the automobile, and particularly ones that move at high rates of speed, and maybe even participate in illegal activity. It is sad to think that we are stuck with this film, Nicolas Cage's "Gone In 60 Seconds", and "Star Wars Episode 1" (podraces). Thats it. Thats all we got. Every other genre seems to have its epic film, but this one is still absent.

The story of the film is a bit easy. I would prefer something a bit more complex, more dramatic, just more creative. But at the end of the day it has cars that go fast for a purpose, says the film.

I also think this film has taken a hit for all the sequels. You scratch off those other films from existence and people might not be as harsh about this one. Maybe I'm wrong. I wouldn't ever say this film is a must see, but if you love cars, fast ones, you don't have many options.

"Fast and the Furious"

6 / 10

Review: "Conviction" (2010)

Tony Goldwyn is probably on the sunnier side of actors turned directors, but still, a very far journey away from true talent behind the screen. He pieced together a solid cast for the film, among other good decisions, but the film falls slightly better than the average movie based on a true story. Normally a true story worth giving screen time has a story interesting enough to carry the viewer anyway. This one had both solid acting and a good story. I think it is apparent enough to say the flaws of the film are in the direction of the story for the film. There are so many moments in the film that would have been better cut out.

Talented directors can reveal a character's personality without showing constant irrelevant moments. Hilary Swank, a 2 time 'Best Actress' again shows me how little I know about winning that award. She is baffling to me, I haven't seen anything that shocked me from her yet, and she managed 2 'Best Actress' awards. She is a good performer, but not one that can carry a whole project herself. If you were to compare her with lets say Julia Roberts, there are different screen presences, a distinct talent separation. Roberts can carry projects on her own shoulders, where as Swank, in my opinion cannot. It is hard to speak my thoughts about Swank without seeming to be harsh. It isn't that I am bothered by her performances, but she doesn't seem to be on the level of greatness her accomplishments would seem to put her in. Overall her performance is a good one with many moments of an unreal human being, she needs to work on that balance.

Sam Rockwell, the most interesting person in the film, and best actor of the film, shows us why he is many levels ahead of Swank. It is nice to finally see him getting more challenging roles to project his talents onto the big screen. It is a pleasure watching him perform. In this film, there are moments that bother me in which Rockwell is in the scene, but its just because the scene itself exists, not the performance.

Melissa Leo, even though she gives a minor amount of screen time, really shows up the whole cast. She could become my most interested actress at the rate of her couple flicks.

The film is very vanilla, it is a fast-forwarded, and blurry version of "Erin Brockovich" meets "Shawshank Redemption".

I really felt like this movie had more of a made for television quality to it, but maybe it was just the recycled story of so many before it, true or not. If the woman was the one jailed, or perhaps of African American ethnicity, it would have been produced by Oprah and aired on her new network. But, regardless, the only reason why the story wouldn't have struck many nerves, regardless of the circumstances, is because in a broad stroke, we have seen this story 2.5 million times already.

"Conviction"

6 / 10

Review: Yimou Zhang's "A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop" (2009)

First things first I want to say all the critics who harshly criticized this film are all dumb. The film isn't a very well received film, and I can only think of 2 reasons why that could be. One, is that it is a retake of an already semi-beloved film. The second, is that the critics were overwhelmed with such awesomeness they crapped themselves, and because they crapped themselves, they hated the experience.

Yimou Zhang is a fairly big name in Hollywood in terms of the body of work he has put together. From making such films as "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers" which were both well received in America, and then a whole other treasure chest full of films which critics managed to favor in a heavier Chinese party.

Based on critical acceptance, "A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop" was his least bit of work. I on the other hand would rank this on top of both "Hero" and "House of Flying Daggers". I haven't been exposed to his other work.

I was so pleased in watching the film, when I looked into how well it was received, I was baffled. How could I love something so unloved? I really have no clue.

The film was a retake of the Coen Brother's "Blood Simple". I felt this was a better film than theirs. I would also say that the Coen's produce my most anticipated films, based solely on their direction. So by no means am I placing this film over the Coens out of spite in any way.

I felt that artistically, scenes were shot much better. Acting, more on the same level as it's predisessor. And I think direction would still have to go to the creator of the great story found in both films. Originality takes home the most points.

This film could make a great argument for me in declaring it the best film of 2009. I don;t know how well that argument would or could stand against some of my other arguments for other films of 2009, but it would definitely be in the discussions, and definitely in my top 5 for the year.

The film accomplished great humorous sprinkles on top of great mysterious drama. Only a couple scenes had me bothered, mostly in some camera decisions, but only in a couple scenes. One of the most interesting characters I have ever seen is the police officer in the film. Sets and set designs were just awesome, costumes were even better. Just about everything in this film was done to perfection.

The ending leaves us with a random clip of... I don't even know what or how to describe it. It is just odd. I told myself it was the director's signature to someone else's work as his recreation, and that made me feel better. In terms of remakes or retakes, this one gives me reason for hope in the future. A truly great tribute to and from respected directors. Just great.

Watch the movie. Its a foreign film, and with foreign films, come subtitles. Expose yourself to some great foreign films like this and you will be more acceptable to them in the future. Just great.

"A Woman, A Gun and A Noodle Shop"

9 / 10

Review: Sergio Leone's "Once Upon A Time In America" (1984)

Sergio Leone. The man responsible for thrusting Clint Eastwood into a legendary status in the 'Man Without a Face' series. He is also the man who brought us an almost 4 hour film about New York Jewish gangsters starring Robert De Niro. I prefer his westerns, and even more so, I prefer only his westerns in which Clint Eastwood stars.

This film took me about a whole day to watch. 4 hours for a film is no joke, it is a serious expedition, one that needs to have a lot going for it to push me to watch it. I thought Robert De Niro would be the exception to my prior Clint Eastwood theory as to Sergio Leone's success. Nope. Films still rely heavily on writing and this one is no exception. Clint Eastwood's character in the western films was interesting to watch doing anything, but not for a story's sake. This film had a less interesting character in just as mediocre a story. For a mediocre story to last 4 hours is amazing to see and think about how it could have ever have been received so well.

The acting throughout the film, from all the corners of the screen. Robert De Niro doesn't make any stand out performance but it feels like he may have been the only one to carry such a project. This film's success confirm's the film world's belief that Robert De Niro is the world's greatest actor in cinema. Only someone of his fame could have so many so interested.

If the film was squished down to 2 hours, maybe even 2 1/2 hours, it could have been enjoyed. But, the film was way too slow, and at many moments, paused. So many moments looked like it was being ripped, shredded, blended, and then spread back out trying to seem original, while failing, and looking like a Godfather film. The cover has theft on it, the tones have theft on it, and some of the events have theft on it.

The film was about a man who had twisted sexual desires, unable to control those desires, topped off with sprinkles of greed for power. It starts with children, and ends with grey hair, with little to no development in its characters.

Also, the music was like a drill to my brain. Reminded me of the "Karate Kid" soundtrack.

You have 4 hours of time to watch this film? Don't. Not unless you want to chase down all of De Niro's work... and make this the last.

"Once Upon A Time In America"

6 / 10